Results 1 to 4 of 4

Thread: Anxiety Politics

  1. #1

    Smile Anxiety Politics

    Yeap this is the Third release in my mini-series about you all nervous Nellies. In the first two posts, I lead in with a remark from Rience Priebus,

    basically admitting the Tea Party People were livin'-it-up a bit too much and became disconnected to reality thru their own ideological guises. I follow with Daniel Bell's statement which, for all you know, could have been written about the TEA Party but was first released in 1960 and is about the social affairs of the fifties. A fitting conclusion to Mitt Romney's retrograde candidacy I think,

    posted here explains more on the social phenomenon behind Bell's remark. But did I drive a point home-probably not; most likely you're wafting in the breeze and are afraid to further the discussion because yes, you got anxieties about anything I post and will not step out for yourselves as readily as you back up this falsetto ideology, so artfully packaged by the likes of Mark Levin or Sean Hannity.

    But these frontmen are phony. How is it that he launches a morality crusade against people being dependant on the government if they get an income tax return, yet reaches out during commercial break, to hard-sell the services of Tax Resolution Services in order to see that people who actually evade tax altogether, I mean not even submitting the proper records or whatever so that they make the best possible "deal," can get off by settling with the IRS for less than they owe.

    How is it that Levin calls himself the "Great One" - and then proclaims Obama is being arrogant? Well.. When you are Cheif of Staff in the Justice Department that re-wrote the Anti-monopoly laws so that their big corporate donors can create economic efficiencies thru Fascist industrial structures not unlike pre-Nazi times, and want to shift the grounds of debate to another ideology, why not take your best shot? After all, the best defense is to keep the opposition off-balance with a great offense. But alas, I think most people are more dearly affected by the economic crunch than can be swayed by idealistic rancor.

    If its "heard that before" on this board; what follows is the actual statement that the majority of the right who take up their call to anger, their canned outrage I think, is firmly rooted in status appeals that developed while the economy was constantly pumped by Alan Greedspan's Fed polity of super-low interest rates. When the inevitable correction, now well underway, hits the fan, the right wing narratives shift the blame on parts of the problem like, they can't see the forest for the trees, and dwell on romantic ideals of their past pretenses.

    For if they were to look at the whole squarely instead of squirrely, maybe the answer would be the same way put,

    Only a crisis - actual or perceived - produces real change. When that crisis occurs, the actions that are taken depend on the ideas that are lying around. That, I believe, is our basic function: to develop alternatives to existing policies, to keep them alive and available until the politically impossible becomes the politically inevitable.
    ― Meltdown Friedman

    Awww but Wait, don't all of the right-wing Narrators put that on Rahm Emmanuel i.e. Sure, and he doesn't really deserve the credit: Look for it in your own thinking tank people. Or how about ours, for a change?

    Oh, yeah, change is anathetic to your newfound conservativism. Forget your baseless out-of-touch ideas laying around, and focus the Party of No Solution on solving problems, or get outa the way!

    When the financial crisis exploded with its full force in 2008, the US government provided capital to weak banks and its intervention to save the system from calamitous shutdown was massively larger. All financial institutions, even those that did not require direct subsidy, were saved from ruin.

    The system that came so close to failure was a product of more than three decades of deregulation. Its failure in 2008 disproved the widely held belief that financial markets would be supremely efficient, self-correcting and self-healing engines of capital allocation if they were allowed to operate with only minimal constraints. But the systemic failure was a manifestation of a financial system in which vast sums were systematically extracted by the financial sector from the rest of the economy without commensurate return of productive value.

    Assertions that the markets became more efficient during deregulation, that persist to this day, are largely based on analysis that does not measure the meaningful value of a financial market structure. Markets should be evaluated by the efficiency of capital raising by productive users of capital. The cost of individual transaction (or trades) is relevant to measuring the quality of a market structure, but incomplete. Transaction costs are often (but, as we shall see later, not always) reduced by trading volume, but incremental trading volume can add costs that far exceed further reduced transaction costs.

    Evidence strongly suggests that the cost of capital intermediation – the cost of a productive user of capital to secure investment from capital sources – has increased in recent decades, a period in which it should have fallen significantly because of IT and quantitative advances. The only possible cause of this is that incremental transaction volume, enabled by deregulation, has exacted costs on capital raising for the productive economy.

    These observations provide profound insights that can be expressed as a new theory of market regulation. In this way of thinking, regulation is essential to the efficient functioning of financial markets, properly measured. This efficiency not only improves performance of the economy as measured by productivity and income parity, but also reduces the risk of financial crisis that is an outgrowth of the distortions and price anomalies in the markets that continuously fuel inefficiencies

    Is that too much to ask? Ok, I know the rules between the lines include: No critique of capitalism; direct all ridicule at Socialism or government regulation. Give it your best shot, read the entire link above, and respond to it!

  2. #2
    Yeah, cause the Left has no part of 'crisis' politics. Riiiiight.

    Unless it's the fiscal state of the union, they decry anything and everything a catastrophe in waiting. They exploit and politicize natural and artificial events. They pit people against one another based on race, gender, sexuality and economic status, to name a few. They have to, to further their agenda.

  3. #3

    That Was Them

    Quote Originally Posted by ibleedgreen View Post
    Yeah, cause the Left has no part of 'crisis' politics. Riiiiight.

    Unless it's the fiscal state of the union, they decry anything and everything a catastrophe in waiting. They exploit and politicize natural and artificial events. They pit people against one another based on race, gender, sexuality and economic status, to name a few. They have to, to further their agenda.

    IBG offers us Status Politics tactic #4 (being whipped up by intellectuals opening attacks on liberalism in general.) To which I might add, maybe I might have listened a little too much Sean Hannity Show, what is something like a broken record of him saying "failed socialist policies," and all those other phrases and sound clips to escape being drawn into the fray. Therefore, how about downloading the Demos link, printing it out, and we could each read it through and articulate our finer opinions from a shared perspective? Or, as BHO would say,

    Some people now suggest that I'm too professorial. And I'd like to address that head-on by assigning all of you some reading that will help you draw your own conclusions.

    - Obama at the 2011 White House Correspondents' Dinner

  4. #4
    Put it this way .. both sides cry wolf. The Left has been advancing their various causes for decades through hysteria, largely manufactured. People can't fall for it forever, can they?

    Meanwhile, all you get in this area from the Right is doom & gloom over the economy. If they are right, and it sure looks like they are, we all lose.

    So only one side has fact and truth on its side. Choose wisely which one you're on. There is no room for moderates in these times.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO